|
>The UN has always had an anti-force policy, that's to be >expected.
As well as encouraged >No, Hanz Blix stated that there was "progress", but that >Iraqi's were still not fully in compliance. The "progress" >came when the troops started building up outside Iraq. Bullshit. The inspectors were making considerable progress; there was no need for troop build-up.
>>Umm, hello, I asked you what >>threat Iraq poses to the U.S., >>I didn't say anything about >>Israel. If Saddam is a threat >>to Israel, let Israel fight >>it's own damn battles. > >You missed the point completely.
Beautiful retort.
>>We might recall the warning of >>General Lee Butler, head of >>Clinton's Strategic Command in >>the early 90s, that "it is dan- >>gerous in the extreme that in >>the cauldron of animosities that >>we call the Middle East, one na- >>tion has armed itself, ostensibly, >>with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, >>perhaps numbering in the hundreds, >>and that inspires other nations to >>do so." He was referring to Israel. > >Now this, is way off the topic.
Again, nice rebuttle. If anything, it's way ON topic, because Bush is condemning country for possessing weapons of mass destruction.
>>The new inspectors have searched >>hundreds of places all over Iraq, >>and tested more than 300 chemical >>and biological samples and found >>absolutely no evidence that Iraq >>possesses banned chemical, nuclear >>or biological weapons. All the sites >>that US intelligence said had weapons >>turned out to be empty, and some of >>the inspectors recently told CBS news >>that the information they were getting >>from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp- >>ectors said that the satellite images >>that the US presented were worthless. > >We'll see wont we? When this war is over, we'll see if they >have the weapons or not. When we don't have inspectors >staying in bugged hotels, followed around by Iraqi officials >who's job it is to decieve.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa! Yet again, what a nice retort. >And history has clearly shown that these people are capable >of that to, right?
When the U.S. doesn't meddle in their affairs, yes. Besides, "gain some perspective -- as you said -- history is in the past.
>>>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US >>>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians, >> >>Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just >>started. > >Heeeeeeelloooooo, it's not going to happen. > >>When all was said and done after the >>1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas- >>ualties had occurred. > >Try 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. > >200,000 innocent civilians did not die in Desert Storm.
No, more died because we destroyed their water supply and infrastructure.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rand (Paul or Ayn) philosophy, putting private property rights at the same level of human rights, equates the status of things with the status of human beings. If property is considered equal
|